Review Source of Spatial Data

[emjohnst]

• [x] Look at source of spatial data
• [x] resolve 1261 sites missing spatial data.

Might be because their location is not published in the BCGW. DgRr-41 is example site with spatial data in HRIA but missing in Arches.

Notes from conversation on this topic:

1261 without entries in the HISTORIC_ENVIRONMENT_SP layer and 131 that don't exist in the SITE_LOCATION table (this has the point data that we're not currently using)

For the ones that are missing polygon data here are the statuses / row counts: Federal Jurisdiction 3 Cancelled Record 22 Registry Candidate 60 Legacy 7 Registered 77 Decision Pending 126 Recorded/Unprotected 966

[emjohnst]

Arch branch did a report on how many historic sites in HRIA are missing spatial information and it was only 131

[bferguso]

@emjohnst - the 131 sites matches the comment above - found that 131 didn't have entries in the SITE_LOCATION table. We had previously determined that the point data was not reliable but perhaps we should use it for sites that don't otherwise have a geometry?

Is there another restricted BCGW layer that we could source that may have geometries not listed in the HISTORIC_ENVIRONMENT_SP table?

[bferguso]

This appears to have been resolved by using the entire set of HRIA sites for the geometry sites.

[emjohnst]

@bferguso Excellent! - just curious I tried to remove "registry candidate" and "decision pending" statuses from all of our records to come over - I did that a few months ago and up in the description you had said some of the missing polygons had that status type. I wondered if you could do a check that any Historic place = y and historic place = no does not have registry candidtate and decision pending

[emjohnst]

@bferguso this seems complete?

[bferguso]

@emjohnst - Yes, I believe this is complete. As long as all sites that you expect to have geometries have geometries we should be good.